There is much controversy regarding the use and the effects of politically correct (PC) language and language reforms. This article is focussed on gender-related PC language, that is, non-sexist language. After a short account of the debate on the issue, it is shown that, with regard to gender, language reforms can be based on two main strategies: inclusion and visibility. The preference for one or the other strategy depends not only on the characteristics of the specific language but also on the aim considered as a priority in the context. After an overview of language changes introduced in different (mainly European) countries, studies on the effects of sexist language and language reforms are reviewed. Finally the practical implications of the scientific findings on the issue are discussed.
French
L'emploi et les effets du langage politiquement correct (PC), ainsi que les réformes de la langue, sont actuellement très controversés. Cet article se concentre sur le langage PC à l'égard du genre, à savoir le langage non-sexiste. Après un bref résumé du débat, l'auteure montre que, par rapport au genre, les réformes de la langue peuvent être fondées sur deux stratégies principales: l'inclusion et la visibilité. La préférence pour l'une ou l'autre de ces stratégies ne dépend pas seulement des particularités de la langue en question, mais aussi du but qui est considéré prioritaire dans un contexte donné. Après un compte rendu des changements de la langue introduits dans différents pays (surtout en Europe), une revue des études sur les effets du langage sexiste et des réformes de la langue est présentée. Enfin, les implications pratiques des résultats scientifiques sur le thème sont discutées.
Banaji, M.R. and Hardin, C. D. (1996) “Automatic Stereotyping” , Psychological Science7: 136–141 .
2.
Bem, S.L. (1974) “The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny” , Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology42(2): 155–162 .
3.
Bem, S.L. and Bem, D.J (1973) “Does Sex-Biased Job Advertising ‘Aid and Abet’ Sex Discrimination?” , Journal of Applied Social Psychology3: 6–18 .
4.
Bendix, E.H. (1979) “Linguistic Models as Political Symbols: Gender and the Generic ‘He’ in English” , Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences327: 23–39 .
5.
Blaubergs, M. (1978) “Changing the Sexist Language: The Theory behind the Practice” , Psychology of Women Quarterly2: 244–261 .
6.
Blaubergs, M. (1980) “An Analysis of Classic Arguments against Changing Sexist Language” , Women's Studies International Quarterly3: 135–147 .
7.
Bodine, A. (1975) “Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar: Singular ‘They’, Sex Inde.nite ‘He’, and ‘He or She”’ , Language in Society4: 129–146 .
8.
Braun, F. , Gottburgsen, A. , Sczesny, S. and Stahlberg, D. (1998) “Konnen Geophysiker Frauen sein? Generische Personenbezeichnungen im Deutschen” [Can Geophysicists be Women? The Generic Identi.cation of People in German] , Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik26: 265–283 .
9.
Burr, E. (2003) “Gender and Language Politics in France”, in M. Hellinger and H. Bußmann (eds) Gender across Languages, vol. 3, pp. 119–139. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
10.
Burr, V. (1998) Gender and Social Psychology. London: Routledge .
11.
Bußmann, H. and Hellinger, M. (2003) “Engendering Female Visibility in German”, in M. Hellinger and H. Bußmann (eds) Gender across Languages, vol. 3, pp. 141–174. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
12.
Cameron, D. (1985) Feminism and Linguistic Theory. New York: St Martin's Press .
13.
Carroll, J.B. , ed. (1956) Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
14.
Council of Europe (1990) “Recommendation No. R(90)4 on Elimination of Sexism from Language”, Statute of the Council of Europe (Article 15b).
15.
Crawford, M. and English, L. (1984) “Generic versus Speci.c Inclusion of Women in Language: Effects on Recall” , Journal of Psycholinguistic Research13: 373–381 .
16.
Daly, M. (1979) Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism. London: The Women's Press .
17.
de Beauvoir, S. (1966) Le Deuxie`me Sexe. Paris: Gallimard . (Orig. published 1949.)
18.
Durand-Delvigne, A. (1997) “Positions hierarchiques, contextes professionnels et expressions du genre” , Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale10: 31–47 .
19.
Elmiger, D. and Wyss, E.L. , eds (2000) “La feminisation de la langue en Suisse”, Special issue of the Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée 72.
20.
Falk, E. and Mills, J. (1996) “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Omophily, Intended Audience and Offense” , Women and Language19: 36–43 .
21.
Gastil, J. (1990) “Generic Pronouns and Sexist Language: The Oxymoronic Character of Masculine Generics” , Sex Roles23: 629–643 .
22.
Gerritsen, M. (2002) “Towards a More Gender-Fair Usage in Netherlands Dutch”, in M. Hellinger and H. Bußmann (eds) Gender across Languages, vol. 2, pp. 81–108. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
23.
Glick, P. and Fiske, S.T. (1996) “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism” , Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70: 491–512 .
24.
Glick, P. and Fiske, S.T. (1997) “Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. Measuring Ambivalent Sexist Attitudes toward Women” , Psychology of Women Quarterly21: 119–135 .
25.
Greene, K. and Rubin, D.L. (1991) “Effects of Gender Inclusive/Exclusive Language in Religious Discourse” , Journal of Language and Social Psychology10: 81–98 .
26.
Hellinger, M. and Bußmann, H. (2002) “Gender across Languages”, in M. Hellinger and H. Bußmann (eds) Gender across Languages, vol. 2, pp. 1–25. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
27.
Hellinger, M. and Bußmann, H. , eds (2002–3) Gender across Languages, vols 2 and 3. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
28.
Higgins, E.T. (1996) “Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Applicability and Salience”, in E.T. Higgins and A.W. Kruglanski (eds) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford .
29.
Honneger, M. (2000) “Das Vorabendprogramm im Schweizer Privatfernsehen und seine sprachliche Ferne zu Frauen” [The Early Evening Programme in Private Swiss Television and Its Linguistic Distance from Women] , Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée72: 155–171 .
30.
Hunt, E. and Agnoli, F. (1991) “The Whor.an Hypothesis: A Cognitive Psychology Perspective” , Psychological Review98: 377–389 .
31.
Johnson, M.E. and Dowling Guyer, S. (1996) “Effects of Inclusive vs Exclusive Language on Evaluations of the Counselor” , Sex Roles34: 407–418 .
32.
Lakoff, R. (1973) “Language and Woman's Place” , Language in Society2: 45–80 .
33.
Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row .
34.
Lalonde, R.N. , Doan, L. and Parreson, L.A. (2000) “Political Correctness, Beliefs, Threatened Identities and Social Attitudes” , Group Processes and Intergroup Relations3: 317–336 .
35.
Liben, L.S. , Bigler, R.S. and Krogh, H. (2002) “Language at Work: Children's Gendered Interpretations of Occupational Titles” , Child Development73: 810–828 .
36.
Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1997) “Professions au masculin et au feminin: un moyen terme entre le masculin et le feminin?” , Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale2: 135–152 .
37.
Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. and Joye, D. (1988) “Representations sociales des categories socioprofessionnelles: aspect methodologique” , Bulletin de Psychologie40: 377–390 .
38.
McConnell, A. and Fazio, R.H. (1996) “Women as Men and People: Effects of Gender-Marked Language” , Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin22: 1004–1013 .
39.
McConnell, A.R. and Gavanski, I. (1994) “Women as Men and People: Occupation Titles Suf.xes as Primes” , paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May 1994.
40.
McMinn, M.R. , Williams, P.E. and McMinn, L.C. (1994) “Assessing Recognition of Sexist Language: Development and Use of the Gender-Speci.c Language Scale” , Sex Roles31: 741–755 .
41.
Madson, L. and Hessling, R.M. (1999) “Does Alternating between Masculine and Feminine Pronouns Eliminate Perceived Gender Bias in Text?” , Sex Roles41: 559–575 .
42.
Marcato, G. and Thune, E.M. (2002) “Gender and Female Visibility in Italian”, in M. Hellinger and H. Bußmann (eds) Gender across Languages, vol. 2, pp. 187– 217. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
43.
Matheson, K. (1987) “The Effect of Sexist Attitudes and Social Structure on the Use of Sex-Biased Pronouns” , Journal of Social Psychology127: 395–398 .
44.
Michard, C. (2002) Le sexe en linguistique. Paris: L'Harmattan .
45.
Miller, C. and Swift, K. (1976) Words and Women. New York: Anchor Press .
46.
Mucchi-Faina, A. and Barro, M. (2001) “Segnali periferici di tipo linguistico e attendibilita` della fonte: il caso del suf.sso -essa” , paper presented at the 4th general meeting of the Social Psychology Division of the Italian Psychological Association, Palermo, September 2001.
47.
Murdoch, N.L. and Forsyth, D.R. (1985) “Is Gender-Biased Language Sexist? A Perceptual Approach” , Psychology of Women Quarterly9: 39–49 .
48.
Ng, S.H. , Chan, K.K. , Weatherall, A. and Moody, J. (1993) “Polarized Semantic Change of Words Associated with Females and Males” , Journal of Language and Social Psychology12: 66–80 .
49.
Nissen, U.K. (2002) “Gender in Spanish: Tradition and Innovation”, in M. Hellinger and H. Bußmann (eds) Gender across Languages, vol. 2, pp. 251–279. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
50.
Niven, D. and Zilber, J. (2000) “Elite Use of Racial Labels: Ideology and Preference for African American or Black” , Howard Journal of Communication11: 267–277 .
51.
Parks, J.B. and Roberton, M.A. (1998a) “In.uence of Age, Gender and Context on Attitudes toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language: Is Sport a Special Case?” , Sex Roles38: 477–494 .
52.
Parks, J.B. and Roberton, M.A. (1998b) “Contemporary Arguments against Nonsexist Language: Blaubergs Revisited” , Sex Roles39: 445–461 .
53.
Parks, J.B. and Roberton, M.A. (2000) “Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Attitudes toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language” , Sex Roles41: 415–438 .
54.
Pauwels, A. (1999) “Feminist Language Planning: Has It Been Worthwhile?” , Linguistik Online2; available at http://www.linguistik-online.de/heft1_99/pauwels.htm
55.
Pavlidou, T. (2003) “Women, Gender and Modern Greek”, in M. Hellinger and H. Bußmann (eds) Gender across Languages, vol. 3, pp. 175–199. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
56.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer .
57.
Prentice, D.A. (1994) “Do Language Reforms Change Our Way of Thinking?” , Journal of Language and Social Psychology13: 3–19 .
58.
Rubin, D.L. and Greene, K.L. (1991) “Effects of Biological and Psychological Gender, Age Cohort, and Interviewer Gender on Attitudes toward Gender-Inclusive Language” , Sex Roles24: 391–412 .
59.
Russell, L.M. (1985) “Inclusive Language and Power” , Religious Education80: 582– 602 .
60.
Sabatini, A. (1986) Raccomandazioni per un uso non sessista della lingua italiana. Rome: Commissione nazionale per la realizzazione della parita` tra uomo e donna, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Istituto Poligra.co e Zecca dello Stato.
61.
Schneider, J.W. and Hacker, S.L. (1973) “Sex Role Imagery and Use of the Generic ‘Man’ in Introductory Texts: A Case in the Sociology of Sociology” , American Sociologist8: 12–18 .
Spender, D. (1980) Man Made Language. London: Routledge .
64.
Stahlberg, D. , Sczesny, S. and Braun, F. (2001) “Name Your Favorite Musician: Effects of Masculine Generics and Their Alternatives in German” , Journal of Language and Social Psychology20: 464–469 .
65.
UNESCO (1987) Guide to Non-Sexist Language. Paris: UNESCO .
66.
UNESCO (1999) Guidelines on Gender-Neutral Language. Paris: UNESCO .
67.
Weatherall, A. (2002) Gender, Language and Discourse. Hove: Routledge .
68.
Wilson, E. and Ng, S.H. (1988) “Sex Bias in Visual Images Evoked by Generics: A New Zealand Study” , Sex Roles18: 159–168 .
69.
Wilson, K.G. (1993) The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. New York: Columbia University Press .
70.
Withers, B.A. (1985) “Inclusive Language and Religious Education” , Religious Education80: 507–521 .
